Talk:Hearing Voices Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

2004 and 2005 comments[edit]

Thanks for your message re suspected copyvio for this article. I am the original author - this is a sect from a fuller piece I wrote for 'Open Mind' and 'Asylum'. Not too clear why its been pulled? Or what I can do to remedy the situation. The quoted vio is not a work I am familiar with but probably draws on the same sources. I think my piece was properly referenced so not sure why this is a vio? Thanks Jinko 13:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added an introduction and performed some formating of the page. Please check for appropriate wording. Thanks. — RJH 20:43, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article could do with some headings. Ben Finn 22:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

INTERVOICE Online Discussion Forum[edit]

If you found the information about the hearing voices movement and the work of Marius Romme interesting and would like to know more you are cordially invited to join the INTERVOICE Online Community.

INTERVOICE is an international online community set up by Marius Romme and colleagues dedicated to sharing information about the work on the meaning of voices. The online community is a free mailing list which allows you to send email messages to other members of the community as well as to visit our website where you can also send and view messages.

The Online Community is intended to bring together people involved in the work of INTERVOICE (International Network for Training, Education and Research into Hearing Voices) and anyone else who has an interest in this subject.

The purpose of this forum is to encourage discussion and debate about the meaning of the voice hearing experience (auditory hallucinations) and to consider the latest work and research into this phenomenon. The Online Community is a place where:

• you can ask questions, find answers, and share ideas with other INTERVOICE members from around the world • you can find presentations and papers produced by members and others in different languages • you can find out the latest news from the national forums • you can find information about training events and conferences • you can find out about some of the other forums and websites on issues about hearing voices • you can read profiles about the work and interests of the INTERVOICE members • you can find more about INTERVOICE, it’s aims and objectives and plans for the future

Go to


Yahoo Voice-Hearers Support Group: Support and Research Group:

DID/MPD Dissociative Disorders:

DID/MPD Support Group:

NYT Daniel Smith article[edit]

Can You Live With the Voices in Your Head? By DANIEL B. SMITH Published: March 25, 2007 - NYT[1] "Daniel B. Smith is the author of “Muses, Madmen and Prophets: Rethinking the History, Science and Meaning of Auditory Hallucination,” just published by the Penguin Press and from which this article is in part adapted."

What percentage of people hear voices in their head, at some point in their life? What cultures have tolerated, supported, or even expected/celebrated hearing voices?- 14:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Native American cultures do. It's considered quite normal to hear the voices of your departed loved ones, especially in the first few years after they have died. This is actually cited in one of the supplements to the DSM-IV concerning avoiding misdiagnosis due to cultural or religious differences. --Bluejay Young 12:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Significant neutrality issues[edit]

This article needs major changes. Except for the introduction, the whole thing reads like a position paper as opposed to a neutral encyclopedia article. It expresses only one position, which is that of a specific organization that has clearly controvertial views. Furthermore, the links and the talk page serve only to advertise the one viewpoint that is expressed in the article. It could almost be a brochure for INTERVOICE. Although the opinions are usually referenced (to the Hearing Voices movement), other viewpoints need inclusion. Consider the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

Almost any reference to viewpoints other than that of the Hearing Voices movement is usually perjorative, factually questionable, and unreferenced. For example, the article seems to imply that schizophrenia and hearing voices are, in the eyes of psychiatry and modern medicine, one and the same. Many times it is stated that psychiatrists or society has such-and-such a view, e.g. that hearing voices indicates pathology. These are unreferenced, and so need to be deleted or carefully rewritten.

"All editors and all sources have biases - what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article."

The trick is to explain the hearing voices movement without mischaracterizing what others believe and without advocacy. Ivete (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


This article is terrible. It's a piece of advocacy, not something that would pass as an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Additionally, the writing style uses roundabout language ("...can be said to have been started..."). It screams prevarication. Some folks, possibly the author(s) of the article, are using this discussion page to discuss the TOPIC, rather than the article -- and even to promote advocacy of a group or a forum. This is inappropriate. rowley (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

its probably just as bias as the psychosis and schizophrenia topics Earlypsychosis (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Acutally, now that I've had a good read - this is very bias, but does contain some good sources. Will start work on it Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling a Cat a Cat[edit]

Delete this article? Rewrite this article? At least take homosexuality out of this article? The voices tell me to do all three!!![edit]

I'm not sure that you can equate hearing voices and homosexuality. Obviously, there are cases in which hearing voices poses a serious threat to the well-being of the person experiencing them, and the people around them. I don't think the same spectrum applies to homosexuality: you can't be so gay that it kills you. They stopped telling us that in the 80s.

The Bias section above also has considerable merit. If there's anybody who knows enough about this organization, objectively, to write a disinterested article on it, they should do so. At the very least, it needs modifications to the descriptions of the movement's views on psychiatry, which are definitely stated argumentatively.

I'm too tired to edit this article right now, but I'll check back in a couple weeks and do it if someone else hasn't. (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking about a rewrite. I know of their work, but not enough to write much. It would help if you logged on to make contributions. Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
the reference to homosexuality is a reference to the inclusion of homosexuality in psychiatry manuals as a disorder. This wasnt recently, although I'm too young to know when it was removed from DSM. Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

homosexuality was removed from DSM in 1974 (within my lifetime!) Earlypsychosis (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

multiple issues[edit]

this article has merit but think that the issues are:

  • very bias and antipsychiatry. the movement is about an alternative to mainstream psychiatry, but the article in not written from NPOV
  • poor use of references - written like an APA referencing style
  • needs copyediting

Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


This article is very one sided, and a lot of the sources do not appear reliable, eg. reference 10 contained in this article appears to be fabricated. First of all it is controversial - every study I have ever read suggest the majority of those with positive schizophrenic symptoms significantly improve with antipsychotic medication, and secondly there is no study written in 1999 with an author Romme that makes this claim (at least not on google scholar).

It also needs to be made clear that schizophrenia and voice hearing are very separate things.

I was quite concerned about the one sided nature of this article - until I read down to the advert. I really think wikipedia should reconsider hosting a biased article, based on unreliable sources, that then advertises a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia now hosts adverts?[edit]

This article is nothing more than an advertisement. All it lacks is pictures of good-looking, highly successful people who all use Intervoice. All I see on their forums are masses of voice hearers who no longer take their meds and now believe the voices really are angels/demons/God/Hitler (yes I am a voice hearer).

Nice work intervoice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Page revamp[edit]

This page is a mess. Tempted to nominate it for WP:NUKEANDPAVE, but will try my hand at editing first. Please discuss edits here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree and trimmed down some of the worst parts. Still needs a lot more work. Editors connected to the topic should read WP:COI and WP:NPOV. GermanJoe (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)